SCOTUS ruling on sex offenders

The Coffee Shop
1

Thomas and Scalia dissent; Wise Latina, Chief Justice Roberts and the majority side with the Obama Administration, represented by Elena Kagan:

(CNN) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to keep some sex offenders behind bars indefinitely after they have served their sentences if officials determine those inmates may prove “sexually dangerous” in the future.

“The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.(…)

The law in question is the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which includes a provision allowing indefinite confinement of sex offenders. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled lawmakers had overstepped their authority by passing it, prompting the current high court appeal.

“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” Breyer wrote.

Breyer equated the federal civil commitment law to Congress’ long-standing authority to provide mental health care to prisoners in its custody, if they might prove dangerous, “whether sexually or otherwise.”

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the federal government overstepped its bounds.

“Congress’ power, however, is fixed by the Constitution,” Thomas wrote. "It does not expand merely to suit the states’ policy preferences, or to allow state officials to avoid difficult choices regarding the allocation of state funds."He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.

The case represented a victory for the federal government and the woman who argued the case on its behalf, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. President Obama nominated Kagan last week to serve on the Supreme Court.

The justices in April 2009 had blocked the imminent release of dozens of sex offenders who had served their federal sentences after the Obama administration claimed many of them remain “sexually dangerous.” Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the men be kept in custody while the case worked its way to the high court.(…)

The act also increased punishments for certain federal crimes against children and created a national registry for sex offenders. Those aspects of the bill were not being challenged in this case.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

2

It may or may not violate their constitutional rights - but I’m not in favor of releasing some of these sexual predators back into society. If it did violate their rights - then I’d be in favor of passing an amendment so that it wouldn’t. Some people simply do not belong in society.

3

This seems odd to me. Did I not grasp what they said or did I read that they said the government could override the laws and the punishment that has been deemed normal for certain offenses.

Trust me Im no fan of sex offenders but unless Im way off I am very surprised at this decision.

The justices in April 2009 had blocked the imminent release of dozens of sex offenders who had served their federal sentences after the Obama administration claimed many of them remain "sexually dangerous

And yet Gitmo has to be closed and those held there given every right in world plus some we dont know about even though we’ve been told if they were found innocent we would still lock them up. These Marxist/Socialist/Progressives are a strange breed and their followers can be an amusing bunch.

4

But we can rehabilitate terrorists sworn to die and take as many of us with them as possible with love and peace. We can’t rehabilitate sex offenders. Now it’s up to you to decide whether I forgot to turn on my pink font… :slight_smile:

5

did I read that they said the government could override the laws and the punishment that has been deemed normal for certain offenses.

-based on another law (which was the basis for the challenge), yes. I tend to agree with rick re Constitutionality (and Thomas and Scalia) and pursuing change through the proper channels.

I wonder how Kagan would have sided in this case.

6

From the article: “Corrections officials and prosecutors determined the men remained a risk for further sexually deviant behavior if freed.” That determination, it seems to me, should be done through an objective court hearing, where corrections officials and prosecutors would be free to testify and offer evidence, as would witnesses for the other side. The notion that non-judicial personnel should be able to take on the role of judge and jury is IMO fundamentally anti-American.

I have no quarrel, however, with the idea that the pattern of an offender’s past behavior may create a risk to others in society which may necessitate further incarceration, or at least (depending on the individual case) some form of further surveillance/monitoring after original sentences have been served.

7

The problem I have with this is that there is no way of being able to “Predict” the future.

In essence what is being said here is that one individual or group of individuals “Believes” that another individual “might” be a danger.

I would rather see the penalty for a single offense be increased to life imprisonment than we go down this road.

~Matt

8

These Marxist/Socialist/Progressives are a strange breed

Roberts and Alito too! Oh no! Time to resurrect the House Committee on Un American Activities!

9

That seems egregious to me as well. I don’t see how either could be entirely fair and impartial with regard to sex offenders. A judge’s ruling seems to me the only legitimate (if still not Constitutionally supported) means of continuing incarceration of a citizen who has served his or her time.

10

A judge’s ruling seems to me the only legitimate (if still not Constitutionally supported) means of continuing incarceration of a citizen who has served his or her time.

As I stated I’d rather see the penalty upped to life for a first time offense than test these waters.

Once we start allowing incarcerations to be lengthened based solely on a judgment and ones “belief” that one poses a threat even after serving the time for a punishment, we start adding a whole new dimension to our justice system. This could eventually land one in prison for life for any number of crimes.

~Matt

11

There’s no necessity to predict the future, but sometimes a person’s past pattern of violations is sufficient to provide an objectively compelling basis for regarding that person as a future risk and therefore for taking action to protect oneself. If the basic principle of justice is that an individual should experience the consequences of his (or her) own actions, rather than suffering the consequences of the actions of others, then justice demands in such cases that others in society should not be obliged to incur the cost of self-protection.

The difficulty, of course, is in defining “objectively compelling basis.” It’s precisely because of that objectivity requirement that the evaluation of future risk should be based on an objective judicial process, not on the subjective, unchallengeable opinions of prosecutors and/or prison officials.

12

These Marxist/Socialist/Progressives are a strange breed

Roberts and Alito too! Oh no! Time to resurrect the House Committee on Un American Activities!

I was talking about the current admin in reference to Gitmo and their move to circumvent Miranda rights and to put people on trial and then do what they wish with them no matter the verdict etc.

13

objective judicial process

sadly, this phrase is an oxymoron…

14

There’s no necessity to predict the future, but sometimes a person’s past pattern of violations is sufficient to provide an objectively compelling basis for regarding that person as a future risk and therefore for taking action to protect oneself.

If a person is in jail their in jail because of their “Past actions”. Once they have served their time you can only make an “Additional” judgment based on their time in jail. Whilst in jail one could assume they have not molested any children and more than likely have not shown any behavior that would show they are going to continue to molest children unless they out and out admit they will as soon as they get out, which is another story all together.

So in almost every case the behavior that must be judged would have to be that of the behavior that took place prior to incarceration, in which case the penalty should have been stiffer in the first place.

What I’m saying here is that behavior in jail is likely not indicative in any way of behavior with 100% freedom. If one shows behavior while 100% free that indicates a person will ALWAYS be a danger to society then the original sentence should be life imprisonment.

Making a judgement on ones behavior while incarcerated seems like a very metric in which to judge ones behavior while free.

~Matt

15

It does seem more appropriate to deny parole on these grounds than to detain beyond the completed time assigned by the court. Though, we wouldn’t need life sentencing to accomplish it. 70 years for each conviction oughta do it.

16

Seems to me that any “Judgments” that can be made AFTER serving the time can be made prior to it, particularly in these cases where children are involved.

A gangster might go into jail and be able to show that they are “Rehabilitated” by not shanking people, dealing drugs and generally living a “Good life”. A child molester doesn’t have this opportunity in jail. A child molester might be a model citizen outside of jail except for this one area.

If there is evidence to hold a molester longer than the original sentence it probably existed PRIOR to them going to jail.

~Matt

17

There’s no necessity to predict the future, but sometimes a person’s past pattern of violations is sufficient to provide an objectively

I like the attempt at objectivity. But at the heart of this matter is a purely emotional, subjective response. As a society we have to accept some % of recidivism across almost all crimes. The monetary costs of locking people up forever and/or the social costs of excessively limiting freedom are too great. We let murderers/thiefs/drafters out, and some of them go on to murder/steal/draft again.

Due to recent events, there’s a strong public sentiment that the rape of children is so abhorrent, that we need a 0% recidivism rate. The obvious step of changing sentencing laws won’t work to satisfy this need because it might take 40-50 years to work all of the the current offenders through the system. And formal re-sentencing is probably more constitutionally problematic than this stop-gap measure.

But the issue is that there’s a public demand for justice, immediately. At least that’s what I see. And SCOTUS knows that. To think they’re “above” public opinion is fiction.

18

Parole is denied routinely for conduct exhibited in prison. I would think that consideration should apply here as well (“conduct” being observed and reported behavior from relevant and reliable sources ). I don’t think a convict need physically assault a child to demonstrate that rehabilitation has proven unsuccessful, and that threat still exists. Every violent person is sent to prison in part to protect society from someone who’s proven dangerous. It’s not unique to sex offenders (though their inability to rehabilitate may in fact be).

19

There’s no necessity to predict the future, but sometimes a person’s past pattern of violations is sufficient to provide an objectively compelling basis for regarding that person as a future risk and therefore for taking action to protect oneself. If the basic principle of justice is that an individual should experience the consequences of his (or her) own actions, rather than suffering the consequences of the actions of others, then justice demands in such cases that others in society should not be obliged to incur the cost of self-protection.

The difficulty, of course, is in defining “objectively compelling basis.” It’s precisely because of that objectivity requirement that the evaluation of future risk should be based on an objective judicial process, not on the subjective, unchallengeable opinions of prosecutors and/or prison officials.

That is one of the most intelligent statements I’ve ever read here. Well done sir.

20

I’m not sure why you’re pursuing this point, because you seem to agree with sphere and me on the central point, namely, that prosecutors and corrections officers should not have this unilateral power. But since you insist…

The likelihood of future risk needs to be determined based on the combined evidence of the original crime(s) and any number of things that might have happened in the period since the first sentencing. A lot of things might make a repeat offense more or less likely than it was at the time of the original sentence. A future offense might be more likely, for example, if in the judgment of examining psychiatrists the offender’s state of mind remained unchanged since the original acts. OTOH, it might be less likely if the offender is no longer physically capable of committing said acts. Perhaps he is now bound to a wheelchair or underwent chemical castration. Or perhaps there is now new technology available by which the defendant could be monitored, short of incarceration. There are numerous other factors that might be applicable, both pro and con.

Basically, one does not necessarily know at the time of the first sentencing what the total future impact of the original crime will be, because part of that impact (as I noted above) is not on the primary victim(s), but on those who might now have to protect themselves from this offender, and one doesn’t yet have all the information necessary to determine how much risk he will pose.